Comments on: Triumph of the Richhttp://jimgworld.com/blog1/2011/06/18/triumph-of-the-rich/
Essays and photos by Jim G, a friendly hermit / techie / quasi-Aspie / INTJ-INFJ / bleeding-heart conservative / nowhere-man in his 60s (yikes, how did that happen!?!?). These are my reflections on science, public policy, spirituality, philosophy, society, feelings, humorous little things, and getting old here in northern New Jersey. With a few photos mixed in.Wed, 08 May 2019 01:25:29 +0000hourly1https://wordpress.org/?v=5.0.4By: Mary S.http://jimgworld.com/blog1/2011/06/18/triumph-of-the-rich/comment-page-1/#comment-4259
Mon, 20 Jun 2011 19:44:49 +0000http://jimgworld.com/blog1/?p=2172#comment-4259Jim, I agree almost completely with everything you have said.

But I would like to pull out one point and add something: the business about Social Security being meant to support people only to a certain age. Yes, there is a great debate about social security going on. But what drives me nuts about this whole discussion is this: I remember when Social Security was fully funded. I think it was during Regan’s time (forget when this happened, I plead old age) when the gov’t needed money and looked around for where they could find it. Oh, there it was: A huge pile of money right there sitting in the social security fund. Why not use that? We’ll just put it back when we get some more money. But, of course, it never was put back. That’s how this problem with Social Security started in the first place.

That’s also how rich people spend money. It’s been the Regan’s and the Bushes–those who had money who tend to think that when you need some more, you just go out to the money tree and get some more money.

And that’s exactly the same problem with a lot of the pensions around the nation. The money in them has been used for other things, like a money tree. Who cares if some poor guys and gals who worked for minimum wage most of their lives end up not getting what their money and the investment of their money they put into the social security fund is due them. (Hope that sentence makes sense.)

I know I’m off the track of your point here, but I guess I can’t help myself. It drives me nuts when I hear that Social Security is considered an “entitlement”. No it is NOT! It is the money low(er) income people put into an investment fund for their old age. There’s nothing of “entitlement” about it. It is something due them in justice. The Social Security fund should be (and was originally intended to be) a fund that had fiduciary responsibilities regarding it.

Instead it’s become a money tree where the gov’t goes when it wants some money to pay for bills–for example: the billions (yes billions) unaccounted for in Iraq. I read in the paper the other day that, incredibly, the U.S. Gov’t sent plane loads of pallets loaded with $100 bills that were intended for the reconstruction of Iraq. Now there’s a really twisted situation: We destroyed their infrastructure in a war that never should have happened, and then we send plane loads of money over there to rebuild that same infrastructure. Meanwhile, billions–with a B–disappeared, never to be accounted for. (And I realize I’m completely off track here. But it seems yet another example of how the rich see money–no accountability attached to it.)

Yes, I do hope that Obama’s golf game the other day will lead, not to a change in his attitude regarding those who oppose him, but a change in how the GOP sees what he’s trying to do. But I’m afraid it may not.

And one more small thing to note: Just today I read that John Stewart refered to himself on a Fox News program as a “comedian” not a political commentator and became almost irate when the right-wing interviewer seemed unable to either accept Stewart’s own designation of what it is he does or simiply could not see it. Seems the interviewer, whose name I don’t remember, insisted on calling Stewart a political commentator.

And have you heard Ann Coulter lately? Another one of the “right” group with a truly hostile and mean attitude, who seems to be interested only in proving herself right and everybody else wrong.